I'm curious to see how this turns out. So, Asha on the very low-end, Lumia on the mid to high, and the Nokia X line from low to mid? Covering bases, connection to Microsoft services, and conceivably a clear upgrade path from Asha to Nokia X to Lumia if one was so inclined/able.

The fact its an Android fork is interesting, though... wonder how well the 3rd party marketplaces will work out for Nokia and Microsoft,

Nokia is needlessly increasing market fragmentation in its own product line. These phones don't have the raw power to keep up with the increasing demand of Android apps, and will launch with almost no ecosystem. From a developer's perspective, who will port apps for three low-end handsets?

Interesting. I wonder how hard it would be to write a WinRT emulation layer for Android? Or more likely, an Android emulation layer for Windows Phone? I wonder what the licensing conditions for Android say about that.

Presumably this is the high water mark for these devices and they'll push the platform down-market from here (either directly or by leaving the specs approximately unchanged until they are decidedly low-end).

Because if not, Nokia X is just a worse version of the Nokia 520, and truly is just Nokia engineering's middle finger welcome to Microsoft; just to be killed on day 1.

Nokia is needlessly increasing market fragmentation in its own product line. These phones don't have the raw power to keep up with the increasing demand of Android apps, and will launch with almost no ecosystem. From a developer's perspective, who will port apps for three low-end handsets?

Nokia?

It seems the only reason the X exists is so there's no licensing charge built into the price, I'm assuming these are going to replace Asha at the very low end - like below the Lumia 520 low end.

Why is Microsoft allowing Nokia to do this? Forking Android this much negates what is arguably the biggest advantage, the extensive app catalog: at this point they may as well go all the way and just use Windows Phone. Also, since WP is seeing its biggest gains in emerging markets, this could very much kill its one chance to catch up to the competitors.

Why is Microsoft allowing Nokia to do this? Forking Android this much negates what is arguably the biggest advantage, the extensive app catalog: at this point they may as well go all the way and just use Windows Phone. Also, since WP is seeing its biggest gains in emerging markets, this could very much kill its one chance to catch up to the competitors.

check the GUI, is identical to windows phone, this means that a lot of people could buy a windows phone or a nokia android phone and have the same user experience.

Also developers only would need to copy the apps from one store to other.

In India, where I live, Nokia still has brand value as a classy maker of phones. They dominate the sub-$150 market completely for now, and this is a move to secure that dominance. And the number of shipped handsets will be large enough to seem like developing for it would be profitable.

It won't.

The kind of person who buys cheap phones is not the kind of person who pays for apps. Indian users are old hands at piracy, and I can guarantee that less than 1 in 50 people will pay a single rupee for apps. Especially when it's (usually) so easy to install pirated apps in Android* systems.

Nokia is needlessly increasing market fragmentation in its own product line. These phones don't have the raw power to keep up with the increasing demand of Android apps, and will launch with almost no ecosystem. From a developer's perspective, who will port apps for three low-end handsets?

Nokia?

It seems the only reason the X exists is so there's no licensing charge built into the price, I'm assuming these are going to replace Asha at the very low end - like below the Lumia 520 low end.

Hmmm...but why can't they simply offer cheaper WP phones? Or take a leaf from Apple's book and simply allow outdated models become the new low-end? MS owns Nokia now, surely they can come up with a way to make less feature-rich but fully capable low-end phones.

These handsets are forfeiting the greatest advantage of Android, i.e. app selection and customizability but getting next to nothing in return.

I'm surprised even the low-end Asha 501 has a SIP stack, meaning customers can use VOIP services as easily as changing email addresses.

Let's wait to see if the new X+, etc. join this list of supported devices published by Nokia. Fingers crossed, but probably not for long under Microsoft/Skype.

For a rate comparison chart of a 'family' of cheap VOIP companies customers can purchase PSTN termination from: http://backsla.sh/betamax

I wish more people understood how important SIP compatibility is when buying their phones, rather than letting Verizon. T-Mobile, ATT, lock them into proprietary contracts and services. And of course the same goes for desk phones like the Polycom IP-650 on my desk.

In fact the concept of 'ring-groups' astonishes more people than not, and these are all people that remember when all their home analog lines rang all the phones in all the rooms of their house when a call came in, once upon a time.

I'm curious to see how this turns out. So, Asha on the very low-end, Lumia on the mid to high, and the Nokia X line from low to mid? Covering bases, connection to Microsoft services, and conceivably a clear upgrade path from Asha to Nokia X to Lumia if one was so inclined/able.

I'm also curious about this decision - I could have understood replacing the Asha line *), but to create a new category between Asha and Lumia seems rather odd, because the price gap between the most expensive Ashas and cheapest Lumias is quite narrow.

*) I'm kind of hoping they don't, for example to my 7-year old daughter Asha is quite optimal: battery life is measured in days instead of hours, it has a rudimentary camera and Angry Birds. Basically all she needs in a phone. As to the inevitable questions why a 7-year old should have a phone, here in .fi kids can be quite independent at a young age, she takes the bus herself to school and so on. But I'm more confident letting her do that if I can reach her when needed.

I'm curious to see how this turns out. So, Asha on the very low-end, Lumia on the mid to high, and the Nokia X line from low to mid? Covering bases, connection to Microsoft services, and conceivably a clear upgrade path from Asha to Nokia X to Lumia if one was so inclined/able.

I'm also curious about this decision - I could have understood replacing the Asha line *), but to create a new category between Asha and Lumia seems rather odd, because the price gap between the most expensive Ashas and cheapest Lumias is quite narrow.

I'd be surprised if it isn't related to the Symbian debacle. Slowly fade out Asha, and give time for X to get a foothold.

Why is Microsoft allowing Nokia to do this? Forking Android this much negates what is arguably the biggest advantage, the extensive app catalog: at this point they may as well go all the way and just use Windows Phone. Also, since WP is seeing its biggest gains in emerging markets, this could very much kill its one chance to catch up to the competitors.

Because MS bought only Nokia's hardware side. Nokia is still an independent entity and can do whatever they want.

Hmmm...but why can't they simply offer cheaper WP phones? Or take a leaf from Apple's book and simply allow outdated models become the new low-end?

Using outdated models as the low-end only makes sense if you're as integrated as Apple - that is, if you own the machine-tools that made the outdated models, you own the masks for the chips that power the outdated models, you near-as-dammit own the fab that the chips are made in, and your new models are being made with a new set of machine-tools that you also own, using new chips that you own, in a new fab that you own.

Otherwise the cost of making newly-made outdated models, with fit-and-finish suitable for the luxury market of 2011 and the innards that you used for the luxury market of 2011, is a lot greater than building out of polycarbonate with innards designed for the cheap market of 2014.

Why is Microsoft allowing Nokia to do this? Forking Android this much negates what is arguably the biggest advantage, the extensive app catalog: at this point they may as well go all the way and just use Windows Phone. Also, since WP is seeing its biggest gains in emerging markets, this could very much kill its one chance to catch up to the competitors.

Because MS bought only Nokia's hardware side. Nokia is still an independent entity and can do whatever they want.

Interesting. I wonder how hard it would be to write a WinRT emulation layer for Android? Or more likely, an Android emulation layer for Windows Phone? I wonder what the licensing conditions for Android say about that.

They say it's OK as long as you don't want to put Google Mobile Services, that is, pretty much everything that makes Android valuable, on top of it, I guess.

Why is Microsoft allowing Nokia to do this? Forking Android this much negates what is arguably the biggest advantage, the extensive app catalog: at this point they may as well go all the way and just use Windows Phone. Also, since WP is seeing its biggest gains in emerging markets, this could very much kill its one chance to catch up to the competitors.

Because MS bought only Nokia's hardware side. Nokia is still an independent entity and can do whatever they want.

I think Nokia won't be able to compete in mobile phone space for some time after the deal with MS is done.

Notice how apps that use the GMS APIs won't run? I did mention that as an option for Nokia. It's just not a good option for Microsoft since apps not running means that the application "problem" isn't really solved....

My gut feel is that these phones will be sold without a single mention of the word Android. In other words, even though it is built on AOSP, you should essentially treat it like any other competing mobile platform.

The only difference being that it's slightly easier to port your Android app to it over, say, Windows Phone.

People in the industry (and those who read Ars) will know that the heart of it is AOSP - but everyone else won't, nor will they need to care. For all intents and purposes, it's a new platform.

Maybe there is another shoe to drop. It would be pretty interesting move if MSFT also gave this Android flavor away for free to OEMs and include access to MSFT IP at no charge. That would make their Android cheaper than any other Android. Pretty important on the lowest end phones in particular.

GOOG agreements block someone making GOOG-serviced phones from also making Android non-GOOG-serviced phones. But that matters not at all to new OEMs like those in China that have never made a GOOG-serviced phone. If MSFT can hook those new guys on this, there is less reason for these OEMs to switch to GOOG serviced Android later. And so maybe they really do have a shot at co-opting Android's next billion which will be in the developing world: India, SE Asia, China, Africa.

But to prove the OS works, you have to prime the pump and that means eat your own dogfood (make and sell some devices that use it).

Meanwhile, MSFT can focus their high end efforts on the OS they control top to bottom.

Otherwise the cost of making newly-made outdated models, with fit-and-finish suitable for the luxury market of 2011 and the innards that you used for the luxury market of 2011, is a lot greater than building out of polycarbonate with innards designed for the cheap market of 2014.

People around here don't seem to grasp the price differential between Apple's cheapest and low end smart phones. Apple's cheapest iPhone in emerging markets is the 3 year old iPhone 4, which it sells only in said emerging markets, and costs more than 3 times as much as this, 4 times as much as a Nokia Asha. That's enough to pay for a year of data enabled service.

I thought Arstechnica told us repeatedly that Google is closing Android, Google is keeping all the good stuff to itself and that it is impossible to fork Android and not use Google services. Repeatedly.

Amazon and MS not only did the the impossible, but with minimal effort.

I thought Arstechnica told us repeatedly that Google is closing Android, Google is keeping all the good stuff to itself and that it is impossible to fork Android and not use Google services. Repeatedly.

Amazon and MS not only did the the impossible, but with minimal effort.

It is easy to fork Android and not use Google services. It is hard to make that successful enough to make it competitor to iOS and full Android - because forked Androids will miss MANY apps.

Notice how apps that use the GMS APIs won't run? I did mention that as an option for Nokia. It's just not a good option for Microsoft since apps not running means that the application "problem" isn't really solved....

Notice how apps that use the GMS APIs won't run? I did mention that as an option for Nokia. It's just not a good option for Microsoft since apps not running means that the application "problem" isn't really solved....

Why is Microsoft allowing Nokia to do this? Forking Android this much negates what is arguably the biggest advantage, the extensive app catalog: at this point they may as well go all the way and just use Windows Phone. Also, since WP is seeing its biggest gains in emerging markets, this could very much kill its one chance to catch up to the competitors.

Because MS bought only Nokia's hardware side. Nokia is still an independent entity and can do whatever they want.

Nokia can't make smartphones until, IIRC, 2016, as part of the deal.

Actually, I believe they are only prohibited to use the Nokia brand for smartphones before 2017. In theory they could use some other branding, but since all their phone hardware engineers, most developers and factories were part of the deal, it's highly unlikely that Nokia would re-enter the phone hardware market any time soon.

By the way, there is an error in the article: "The X+ and XL will go on sale next year" should say "next quarter" (Q2).

The success of the platform has nothing to do with Peter Bright tesis, his thesis was that Android can't be forked by technical reasons, Those phones show hi is wrong

It certainly does not. Amazon already shows you can take ASOP and run with it in the West. Peter's article freely admitted that. But that wasn't the same as viably taking ASOP and supplanting GMS in a compatible fashion (GMS being what is commonly considered "Android").

Nokia's effort here is perhaps the closest attempt. But until we know more about the apps situation (and see if played out in reality) it's all basically speculative.

Actually, I believe they are only prohibited to use the Nokia brand for smartphones before 2017. In theory they could use some other branding, but since all their phone hardware engineers, most developers and factories were part of the deal, it's highly unlikely that Nokia would re-enter the phone hardware market any time soon.

Hm, possibly so. But as you say, given that they're selling off all their expertise, it's not very likely.

Quote:

By the way, there is an error in the article: "The X+ and XL will go on sale next year" should say "next quarter" (Q2).

I think the theme is that while Android is, theoretically speaking, forkable, it would be a bad idea to do so, since there is essentially no practical benefit from doing so. .

No, what the author claims is that it can't be forkable by technical reasons

Really?

Quote:

The result is that a forker has to make a choice: they can give Google control and get the all the upsides of the platform, or they can snatch control from Google and get almost none of them."

Nokia has clearly gone with the second option. That may or may not be a good idea, but they did have the choice.

Quote:

For Microsoft, the effort required to build a GMS workalike on top of AOSP is going to be comparable to the effort required to build the Windows Phone shell and APIs on top of Windows. In fact, it's likely to be somewhat greater: Microsoft already has, for example, a browser engine that runs on Windows. It doesn't have one that runs on AOSP.

Moreover, it still implicitly gives Google control over the platform. Various aspects of how Android is used are determined by the underlying APIs: sharing between applications, for example, is done in a particular Android way. Any platform using Android in this way would have only a limited ability to take the platform in a different direction from the one Google chose.

So it is 1. very difficult from a technical standpoint 2. Still gives Google some control. I don't see where the authors says "technically impossible"